Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Harry Stottle

Passage to SL?

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

 Did that happen last time JM?

I can't remember now to be honest. If I remember that was the intention but I don't think it really worked out that way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JM2010 said:

I can't remember now to be honest. If I remember that was the intention but I don't think it really worked out that way

Yep you are bob on it didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

 Did that happen last time JM?

The problem with the old system was that it measured the wrong things and encouraged the wrong behaviours. The previous system needed a much bigger focus on raw commercials, rather than easily manipulated figures. 

It was dead easy for clubs to meet the "10k average crowd" target by throwing out free and cheap tickets like confetti, when what they should have been measured on was a "£xm of ticket sales over a three year period".

The sport is still paying for those mistakes now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Yep you are bob on it didn't.

I think there was too much self interest and franchises were offered on empty promises.

The only way it could work is if it was judged and regularly reviewed by an independent party

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Well I know some including myself who looking at the schedules can't be bothered with the same fixtures time and time again in the same season. Lets see how they go playing longer into the year and clashing with football.

Well, there’s a reason why certain clubs are in more than others. It obviously works to some degree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:

 

I personally think we need to find our feet in the LNER Community Stadium first, but we're certainly on the right track. 🙂 

As long as there are no more delays with the Stadium, you have a great platform now with a good Coach who is steaming along nicely. So there should be no chance of hitting the buffers.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

Two full time divisions in SL is the only way to go, otherwise you restrict expansion or kill established clubs.

The goal must be grab the low hanging fruit, assist France in becoming an International force and provide high quality RL to the emerging N American market.

We cannot kill the larger clubs in the championship -  there fans simply stop buying tickets they don't start supporting a new club. Bradford, Widnes, Leigh, Fev, TO, Newcastle and London are essential for the future. Bradford and Widnes are rebuilding but a few more years they must be back in a SL structure. Ottawa and New York if they become a reality should not be doing the TW route of trying to introduce a new sport by slaughtering inferior opponents.

Two tens from 2022 and two twelves from 2025 must be the goal - Avignon, TO and Cats in France must make it far easier for a TV deal, the same with 3 N American clubs.

Time to start saying we can rather than the typical it wont work because... attitude that makes us the laughing stock we have become

There's a lot of merit in here, but I'm not sure that "two tens" is the way to go. Calling something 'Super League Two' cheapens Super League as a whole, in my view. 

A lot of the argument about "two tens" (or similar models) also seems to be based around the idea that we have to keep everyone happy. This is elite sport, not an 'everybody gets a trophy' school sports day. At some point, a few eggs will inevitably get broken - it is just a question of which ones. Do we have the talent for 20 full time clubs? Do we have 20 clubs that have the commercial strength that allows the competition to grow? 

I do however think that P&R is a bit of a distraction and a circus that actually doesn't do as much for appealing to new fans as I think people suspect it does. I've said in another thread, I think a lot of the "selling point" for some Championship clubs is basically pointing out that there is a better form of rugby being played a couple of bus stops down the road for roughly the same price - is it any wonder that new fans will either go there, or not bother?

There are a couple of clubs that, from the outside looking in, seem to get this. @Gav Wilson may well correct me on this but the approach at York seems to be less about selling the whole "we're desperate to get into Super League" thing and instead, selling the idea that you can come to York and no matter how good or bad the game is, they'll make sure that it's a bloomin' good way to spend £20 on a Sunday afternoon. That's certainly my experience anyway when I went there as a casual - I couldn't tell you anything that I remember from the game, but I can tell you that I enjoyed myself. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Well, there’s a reason why certain clubs are in more than others. It obviously works to some degree. 

But the point of the debate initially regarding TV was with no relegation there is no reason to show those clubs who are not competing for a play off spot, unlike last season when it carried it great deal of interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

But the point of the debate initially regarding TV was with no relegation there is no reason to show those clubs who are not competing for a play off spot, unlike last season when it carried it great deal of interest.

Not at the back end of the season, there’s not. But games between sides who need points for the play-off’s/home advantage/the league leaders shield vs a team in 9th, is likely to be televised over a dead rubber between 9th and 11th. Its why we see a large chunk of the seasons TV schedule announced early in the season and the back end of the year being left free to be decided nearer the time. Sky would not have picked Wakefield v London on the final day of last year without relegation, they’d have gone for Salford v Hull KR or Leeds v Warrington as those games had implications on the play-offs. Now, that doesn’t mean Sky don’t/won’t have to meet their obligations to show everyone. They would do so, it’s why we get Burnley v Norwich as a “Super Sunday” offering and we still get Hull KR v Wakefield, for example, mid-season too as on offering from Sky. 

There was that period where people pushed “every minute matters” but let’s be honest, that’s not true and you will get less appetising games on TV from time to time. It’s the obligations, I’m afraid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

But the point of the debate initially regarding TV was with no relegation there is no reason to show those clubs who are not competing for a play off spot, unlike last season when it carried it great deal of interest.

Your Derek Beaumont aren't you? 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

So if as I suggested we go back to a closed shop, are you saying it should just be the incumbents of SL and whoever they decide to invite along, or should every club be allowed to apply on the same set of criteria and judged accordingly?

Obviously I am like you in which I would prefer the decisions to be made on the field of play, but if we must have some closed shop then everyone should reapply, for example it makes a joke of the so called standards that out of Wakey, Cas and Fev the one with the best ground, and not the worst run either, would likely be the one who would miss out. If we are going to use Mr Hetheringtons measurements then apply them to everybody, and apply to what’s there, not an artist’s impression of a new stadium.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

There are a couple of clubs that, from the outside looking in, seem to get this. @Gav Wilson may well correct me on this but the approach at York seems to be less about selling the whole "we're desperate to get into Super League" thing and instead, selling the idea that you can come to York and no matter how good or bad the game is, they'll make sure that it's a bloomin' good way to spend £20 on a Sunday afternoon. That's certainly my experience anyway when I went there as a casual - I couldn't tell you anything that I remember from the game, but I can tell you that I enjoyed myself. 

 

Thats our ethos mate! 😄 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

There's a lot of merit in here, but I'm not sure that "two tens" is the way to go. Calling something 'Super League Two' cheapens Super League as a whole, in my view. 

A lot of the argument about "two tens" (or similar models) also seems to be based around the idea that we have to keep everyone happy. This is elite sport, not an 'everybody gets a trophy' school sports day. At some point, a few eggs will inevitably get broken - it is just a question of which ones. Do we have the talent for 20 full time clubs? Do we have 20 clubs that have the commercial strength that allows the competition to grow? 

I do however think that P&R is a bit of a distraction and a circus that actually doesn't do as much for appealing to new fans as I think people suspect it does. I've said in another thread, I think a lot of the "selling point" for some Championship clubs is basically pointing out that there is a better form of rugby being played a couple of bus stops down the road for roughly the same price - is it any wonder that new fans will either go there, or not bother?

There are a couple of clubs that, from the outside looking in, seem to get this. @Gav Wilson may well correct me on this but the approach at York seems to be less about selling the whole "we're desperate to get into Super League" thing and instead, selling the idea that you can come to York and no matter how good or bad the game is, they'll make sure that it's a bloomin' good way to spend £20 on a Sunday afternoon. That's certainly my experience anyway when I went there as a casual - I couldn't tell you anything that I remember from the game, but I can tell you that I enjoyed myself. 

1. If we are to ringfence 20 clubs initially they must operate with the same name - La Liga 2 is the commercial name for soccer 2nd division in Spain, 2 Bundesliga in Germany etc - don't really care what that name is but it must be FT with minimum spends.

2. If we had the ELITE clubs to make up 12 teams with 10k plus gates in great stadia with huge commercial incomes I can agree, we haven't so we need to create a true elite - the extra talent initially will come from NRL eg Leigh have 1 overseas so fill the quota and would be as good as anything outside the T6

3. P&R between peers is essential for the British mindset. Playing against the elite is also in that mindset

4. York are where Leigh where in 2013 - building, getting totally slaughtered will not grow gates to a required level. In a few years if York are still a mid table Championship club the crowds will at best stagnate. In my proposal, they would apply for SL2 with a greater fan base and increased sponsorship.

5. There is nothing wrong with being a mainly Northern sport, there is also a major chunk of that region still to develop, but in the Northern hemisphere we must also be the catalyst for expansion especially in France becoming a FT comp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Yes and that’s why there’s a fairly big chunk of the season where you know what games are televised (normally) and the “business end of the season” is left to be decided, so that certain games can be selected. A 10th v 11th in an end-of-season nothing game (in a league with no relegation) is highly unlikely to be selected for TV coverage. The premise that TV would be littered with meaningless games is flawed. 

The lack of something to play for probably works better in the NFL, where there are fewer games as there’s more demand for tickets due to the amount of games played (8 home games a year, I think) and size of the sport worldwide. 

Size of the sport worldwide ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Read Broncos year in review 2019, broke their home ground attendance record three times last year. This was with a losing team.

3000 is not far from 5000 which is not far from 7000..

Have you been to the wedding venue ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

In the opening post I posed the question of what any criteria should be included if we go down that route, any offers?

I think the turnover of the clubs should be incorporated into the criteria with income streams looked at. The way the club is run should be included in this. Also facilities for fans, media, corporate etc.

The strength of the junior game in the town or city and catchment area and the the way the the club is helping to develop and expand the junior clubs and the engagement with schools and clubs. Also the potential for growing the junior game dependent on the size of the area and the demographics 

The junior pathways for young players such as the strength of the scholarship and academy including facilities, coaching, recruiting etc.

That's the main ones I can think of

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Considering the opinions on here, Leigh seem to have little chance if it comes to an invitational aspect, but what about the criteria route which really does need to be judged on tangible aspects in place and not just on a whim and a prayer as per a TV deal would be in Toulouse's case, and then we have the absolute fair method of winning a place by on field competition, Leigh are by no means favourites to accomplish that task but it just absolutely galls me why people are seemingly so frightened to have this method,  I don't  care if we got our opportunity this year, the next or in 5 years time just so long as pathway to the elite level is always available. 

So if as I suggested we go back to a closed shop, are you saying it should just be the incumbents of SL and whoever they decide to invite along, or should every club be allowed to apply on the same set of criteria and judged accordingly?

Harry , how many times on these boards have we seen licencing or franchising discussed , and people asking why Leigh fans are so much against a closed shop ? 

This is why , no matter what we bring to the table , no matter how well we put our case , our location is always against us , and we know it , Dereck knows it , the whole RL world knows it , the ONLY way Leigh will get into SL is by winning its place on the pitch 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

I'd love to see London back in Super League but I realise that one, they have few fans and therefore don't have a mass of potential Sky TV subscribers and two, they couldn't grow the cake in terms of new TV deals.

There's an open goal here for Super League...

What makes you assume that the only potential new Sky TV subscribers who'd tune in if London is in SL are the Broncos' existing fans?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JM2010 said:

I think if it was invitational and franchise based then 12/14 places should be up for grabs with any club able to apply and the strongest applications based on the criteria should get the nod

What criteria ? , And does that criteria apply to existing clubs ? , And if not , why not ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Have you been to the wedding venue ?

Westminster Abbey hosts weddings too. Stop being petulant.

I have been to Trailfinders and while it may not be the largest or most modern type of stadium it is of a size suitable to the needs of the London Broncos in respect of their average gates. The experience was enjoyable despite the fact that we lost and the people there were friendly and welcoming.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JM2010 said:

I think there was too much self interest and franchises were offered on empty promises.

The only way it could work is if it was judged and regularly reviewed by an independent party

Independent to who ?

Set up and picked by who ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

What criteria ? , And does that criteria apply to existing clubs ? , And if not , why not ?

The criteria is up to SL or the RFL but I have attempted to suggest what I think some should be.

I think it should apply to all clubs whether they're in SL currently or not. The strongest 12 applications should get the nod

Edited by JM2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

There's a lot of merit in here, but I'm not sure that "two tens" is the way to go. Calling something 'Super League Two' cheapens Super League as a whole, in my view. 

A lot of the argument about "two tens" (or similar models) also seems to be based around the idea that we have to keep everyone happy. This is elite sport, not an 'everybody gets a trophy' school sports day. At some point, a few eggs will inevitably get broken - it is just a question of which ones. Do we have the talent for 20 full time clubs? Do we have 20 clubs that have the commercial strength that allows the competition to grow? 

I do however think that P&R is a bit of a distraction and a circus that actually doesn't do as much for appealing to new fans as I think people suspect it does. I've said in another thread, I think a lot of the "selling point" for some Championship clubs is basically pointing out that there is a better form of rugby being played a couple of bus stops down the road for roughly the same price - is it any wonder that new fans will either go there, or not bother?

There are a couple of clubs that, from the outside looking in, seem to get this. @Gav Wilson may well correct me on this but the approach at York seems to be less about selling the whole "we're desperate to get into Super League" thing and instead, selling the idea that you can come to York and no matter how good or bad the game is, they'll make sure that it's a bloomin' good way to spend £20 on a Sunday afternoon. That's certainly my experience anyway when I went there as a casual - I couldn't tell you anything that I remember from the game, but I can tell you that I enjoyed myself. 

So you accept that " you can't keep everybody happy " , but upsetting people from clubs that lose on the pitch isn't fair ? 

Utter rubbish 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...